For many of us, the idea of "posthumous marriage" sounds like necrophilia. Thus the news that the French police officer slain (killed! dead!) by a terrorist this spring has now been legally married to his gay lover (not dead) sounds like a case of the courts getting out of control in the you-can-marry-anything-you-want department.

A closer look at the legal context of the incident reveals a little bit about French marriage law, and an awful lot about the power of culture to color our ideals. We'll begin with the French, then turn our gaze at our own sordid biases.

Granting same-sex unions the legal status of marriage is a trend that has swept its way across Europe and North America in the past decade. Register readers are no doubt informed about the cultural forces behind that upheaval.

But a dead man?

In France the practice can be traced at least as far back as World War I, when the practice of proxy-marriages was adapted for the benefit of would-have-been-widows-and-orphans of soldiers who had died at the front. Article 171 of the French Code Civil later made posthumous marriage its own distinct legal category. These posthumous marriages do not confer rights to inheritance or the creation of marital property. As the retroactive marriage is dated back to the day before the deceased spouse died, the surviving half of the couple isn't so much newly-married as newly-widowed.

Why allow such a practice? One reason, primary in the recent case of the slain police officer, is sentimental. Anyone who has grieved the death of a fiancé can appreciate that motivation.

Another reason is the way that French culture has handled the questions of sex, marriage, and paternity. Posthumous marriage legitimizes the child conceived out of wedlock; even today, France has a strong legal and cultural bias in favor of ignoring fornication and infidelity, but favoring the safeguarding of family harmony where the unit of husband, wife, and ostensible children of their union are concerned.

Americans, in contrast, might recognize the value of sentimental or social bonds, but we don't go so far as to create legal conventions such as "posthumous marriage" to undergird those bonds; we have a different hierarchy of priorities.

Think for a moment about cultural differences on less weighty topics. Candor, discretion, sensitivity, enthusiasm, affection, modesty, and harmony are all worthy values. One culture orders those values to produce the rambunctious, loud-mouthed neighbor family, alternately arguing and embracing in a show put on for the whole block to enjoy. The same values, ordered differently, gives us the mousy little creature who will never quite come out and say what he means. Or did we mean that one is refreshingly open and the other admirably humble and self-controlled? Perspective makes all the difference.

We naturally tend to think our own native culture has its priorities in the proper order — other cultures are loveable in their way, but with a few trouble spots.

The wrong-headed habits of people from other cultures might grate on the nerves, but the bulk of those differences are matters of preference, not morals. The difficulty is that when a whole culture does get its morals wrong in some area, it is difficult for those born and bred within that culture to see the problem clearly.

Moral thinking depends on an accurate sense of priorities and the ability to identify objectively evil actions.

We err in our moral thinking, whether individually or as a society, when our priorities get askew. The desire to alleviate suffering, for example, is an important priority. It is not, however, more important than Thou shall not kill; hence euthanasia and assisted suicide are grave evils committed in the pursuit of a good, but fatally misprioritized, goal.

The desire for intimacy, familial bonds, and societal respect is entirely reasonable; when those desires are over-prioritized, we end up with couples attempting to marry who are not, in fact, free to marry one another.

As faithful Catholics we can see well enough that abortion and adultery are wrong, not only because our Catholic subculture fights against such travesties, but because we have allies among our secular fellow citizens. These crimes are self-evident, for those willing to see.

Our challenge, rather, is with the crimes that aren't self-evident. Every culture has its blind spots: Moral failings we are not only unwilling to see, but that we are virtually unable to see.

Thus we read the plain meaning of the Bible or The Catechism, and then put on our thinking caps to work out a way that those words might mean approval for what it condemns, because what we want approved seems perfectly normal and natural to us. Only an outsider can see how strangely deceived we really are.

A quick search around did not find any authoritative comments on Church teaching concerning France’s posthumous marriage law one way or another; I'm reluctant to use my Junior Moral Theologian's DIY Kit where I can see a variety of possible complexities. African bishops have condemned posthumous marriage, but in an entirely different legal and social context that does not appear to apply to France's situation. You can find here a brief comment on that topic among the assortment of links concerning French culture in regard to marriage, family life, and sexuality which I came across while preparing this post. FYI —Google translate does a passable job of getting you quite close to the meaning of the French-language texts, but don’t count on it for legal advice.

This essay is so typically Catholic and so out dated and with 1920 thinking that I could barely stand to read it.

This posthumous marriage was to recognize the engaged partner of a policemen killed defending his country.To recognize the policeman and his partner and to provide his partner with his pension. I greatly commend the President of France Holland and the Mayor of Paris for doing this magnificent gesture.

This type of last-year thinking is why the catholic church is dying. No one wants to be a Catholic priest anymore and this type of thinking is why they don’t. Same-sex marriage is the law of the land in 19 countries and civil-marriage is allowed in Italy and Australia.

If you continue to think with this backward way you are in for a sad awaking. Bigoted and homophobic this essay is from front to back you are just speeding up of the death of a church that is slowly dying as we speak. Religion is less important today and fewer people are religious, or go to temples or churches, and this archaic way of thinking is the reason.

Unless the Catholic Church and it leaders change their way of thinking the death of the church is immanent. How can you hold onto the archaic beliefs and hope to survive just show how stupid the leaders of the Catholic church. They are killing their own chuck.

Posted by Catholilc4ever on Monday, Jun, 12, 2017 9:07 AM (EDT):

Any believer in God knows that this is not a marriage. First, only living people of opposite sex can legitimately get married with the marriage being consummated in the s*xual act that has the natural outcome of making another human being. True Compassion includes this and other truths. We are not against comforting obstinate sinners and certainly now is not the time to point out to those involved that homos*xuality is contrary to God’s law and only harms those involved.
Holy Mother Church must stand up against the societal “norms” and lovingly teach about the truth and meaning of human s*xuality: relations are licit only between one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony as a lifelong institution. Divorce, contraception, homos*xual acts do grave harm to individuals and society.
Jesus can and will (when asked) deliver everyone from harmful behavior. Just ask and believe. God is Love and true love accepts the truths taught by the One Holy Apostolic Church.

Posted by bumble bee on Sunday, Jun, 11, 2017 12:14 PM (EDT):

Posthumous marriage goes against every logical reason. This is not about gay marriage, but about consent of the dead. Until a person consciously states their vow of marriage, in which “I do” is professed, there can be no marriage. This is abuse of the dead. Even in marriage ceremonies, there is explicit wording as to definitively state this which validates a marriage. Then of course there is until death do we part which negates this as well. This trend is so ridiculous, I can’t believe it’s even around. With each new absurdity in this world the deeper into the cave I go waiting for Jesus to return. It won’t be long until I roll the stone over the entrance. I often wonder if this isn’t the Great Delusion prophesied in the end days.

Posted by john on Friday, Jun, 9, 2017 11:40 PM (EDT):

God forbid a society should have compassion for the partners of slain officers. A sure sign of moral decay.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Jennifer Fitz is the author of Classroom Management for Catechists from Liguori Publications, and a contributor to numerous Catholic books, magazines, and online publications. Find her online at JenniferFitz.com.